PB95-964043
                                 EPA/ROD/R04-95/262
                                 June 1996
EPA  Superfund
       Record of Decision:
       Jacksonville Naval Air Station,
       Operable Unit 2, FL
       9/21/1995

-------
         IN I bHJM KhUUKU Oh UbUbiGN

POTENTIAL SOURCE OF CONTAMINATION  (PSC) 42
                OPERABLE UNIT 2
       NAVAL AIR STATION JACKSONVILLE
            JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA
         Unit Identification Code (UIC):  N00207

          Contract No. N62467-89-D-0317/076
                    Prepared by:

           ABB Environmental Services, Inc.
           2590 Executive Center Circle, East
              Tallahassee, Florida 32301
                   Prepared for:

       Department of the Navy, Southern Division
         Naval Facilities Engineering Command
                  2155 Eagle Drive
        North Charleston, South Carolina 29418

      Dana Gaskins, Code 1857, Engineer-in-Charge


                    June 1995

-------
                              S£P 2 1 1935
4WD-FFB

CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

Captain R. D. Whitmire
Commanding Officer
Naval Air Station
Jacksonville, Florida  32212-5000

SUBJ:  Interim Remedial Action Record of Decision
       Operable Unit Two - PSC 42
       NAS Jacksonville, EPA I.D. FL6 170 024 412

Dear Captain Whitmire :

     The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
reviewed the Department of the Navy's Interim Remedial Action
Record of Decision (IROD) for Operable Unit Two - PSC .42 at Naval
Air Station (NAS) Jacksonville pursuant to the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980
(CERCLA) , as amended.  EPA concurs with the findings and the
selected remedy presented in the IROD.

                              Sincerely,
A\
                              John H. Hankinson, Jr.
                              Regional Administrator
cc:  Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary
     Florida Department of Environmental Protection

     Captain R. S. Tyler, USN, Commanding Officer
     Southern Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command

-------
                          CERTIFICATION OF TECHNICAL
                          DATA CONFORMITY (MAY 1987)
      The Contractor, ABB Environmental Services, Inc., hereby certifies that,
te-the best of its knowledge and belief, the technical data delivered herewith
under Contract No. N62467-89-D-0317/76 are complete and accurate, and they comply
with all requirements of this contract.
DATE:
June 2. 1995
NAME AND TITLE OF CERTIFYING OFFICIAL:    Peter Redfern	
                                          Task Order Manager
NAME AND TITLE OF CERTIFYING OFFICIAL:     Mike Dunawav
                                          Project Technical Lead
                              (DFAR 252.227-7036)

-------
                                TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                 Interim Record of Decision
                                    PSC 42 at OU 2
                             NAS Jacksonville, Jacksonville, Rorida
 Chapter	Title	Page  No .

 1.0  DECLARATION FOR THE INTERIM RECORD  OF DECISION 	   1-1
       1.1   SITE NAME AND LOCATION	1-1
       1.2   STATEMENT OF BASIS AND  PURPOSE	1-1
       1.3   ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE	1-1
       1.4   DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED  REMEDY	1-1
       1.5   STATUTORY STATEMENT 	 1-10
       1.6   SIGNATURE AND SUPPORT AGENCY ACCEPTANCE OF THE REMEDY  .  . .  .1-10

 2.0  DECISION SUMMARY	2-1
       2.1   SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION	2-1
       2.2   SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 	   2-1
       2.3   HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 	   2-2
       2.4   SCOPE AND ROLE OF INTERIM REMEDIAL ACTION	2-3
       2.5   SITE CHARACTERISTICS	2-3
       2.6   SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS	2-4
       2.7   SELECTED REMEDY	2-5
       2.8   STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS   	   2-5
       2.9   DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES	   2-6
APPENDIX
      Appendix A:   Responsiveness Summary
IHOD_PSC.42
ASW~08.95

-------
                                   GLOSSARY
ABB-tS      ABB Environmental Services, Inc.
AOC         area of concern
ARARs       applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements

CAA         Clean Air Act
CAMU        corrective action management units
CERCLA      Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
            and Liability Act
CFR         Code of Federal Regulations
CPC         contaminants of potential concern
CWA         Clean Water Act
FAC
FDEP
FDER
FFA
FRE
FRI
FFS
FS
FOTW

IROD
O&M
OSHA
OU

PAH
PA/SI
PCBs
PM10
POTW
PSC

RCRA
RI
Florida Administrative Code
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
Federal Facility Agreement
Focused Risk Evaluation
Focused Remedial Investigation
Focused Feasibility Study
Feasibility Study
federally owned treatment works

Interim Record of Decision
LQR_         Land Disposal Restrictions
LNAPL       light nonaqueous-phase liquid

mg/kg       milligrams per kilogram
Mg/kg       micrograms per kilogram

NAAQS       National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NEPA        National Environmental Policy Act
NAS         Naval Air Station
NCP         National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan
NSPS        New Source Performance Standards
operation and maintenance
Occupational Safety and Health Act
Operable Unit

polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
Preliminary Assessment and Site Inspection
polychlorinated biphenyls
particulate matter less than 10 microns in size
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
potential source of contamination

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Remedial Investigation
IROD PSC.42
Asw'oe.ss

-------
                              GLOSSARY (Continued)
SARA         Superfund Amendments and Reauthorizacion Ac;
SVOCs        semivolatile organic compounds

TAL          cargee  analyte list
TCL          target  compound list
TC           toxicity characteristic
TPH          total petroleum hydrocarbons
TSD          treatment,  storage, and disposal
TU           temporary units

USC          United  States Code
USDOT        U.S. Department of Transportation
USEPA        U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
USGS         U.S. Geological Survey

VOCs         volatile organic compounds
IROO PSC.42
ASW~06.95                                 -JV-

-------
              1.0  DECLARATION FOR THE INTERIM RECORD OF DECISION
1.1  SITE NAME AND LOCATION.  The sice name  is Operable Unit  (OU)  2,  Potential
source of contamination (PSC) 42 (wastewater treatment  plant effluent  polishing
pond) located at the Naval Air Station (NAS) Jacksonville in Jacksonville,  Florida
.'.Figures 1-1, 1-2. and 1-3).


1. 2  STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE.  This decision document presents the selected
interim remedial action for source control at PSC 42  at OU  2,  NAS Jacksonville.
The  selected action was  chosen  in  accordance  with  the  requirements  of  the
Comprehensive Environmental Response,  Compensation,  and Liability Act  (CERCLA),
as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act  (SARA) of  1986.
This decision document explains the factual basis  and rationale for  selecting the
interim remedy at PSC 42.  The information supporting this interim remedial action
decision is  contained in the Administrative Record for this site, which is  located
at the Charles D. Webb Wesconnett Branch of  the Jacksonville  Public Library.

The purpose  of the interim  remedial action  for PSC  42  is to  lower the  risk of
potential  future exposure  to  humans  and   the  environment  by  reducing  the
leachability of contaminated media at PSC 42 to groundwater,  and to close the pond'
in  accordance with  Resource  Conservation  and  Recovery  Act  (RCRA)  closure
requirements.   Upon completion  of  the  overall  Remedial Investigation and
Feasibility  Study  (RI/FS)  for OU 2,  the  need for remedial action to  address
groundwater contamination will be evaluated.   A complete RCRA  closure  of PSC 42
will be addressed in the overall RI/FS for OU 2.

The U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency  (USEPA)  and the  State  of  Florida's
Department  of Environmental Protection (FDEP) concur  on  the  selected  interim
remedy.


1.3  ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE.  Actual or threatened releases of metals from the
site,  if not addressed by  implementing  the response  actions selected  in the
Interim Record of Decision  (IROD),  may violate RCRA closure  requirements, and
leave a potential  groundwater contaminant.  If not addressed, this could  present
a future risk to human health and the environment.
1.4  DESCRIPTION OP THE  SELECTED REMEDY.   OU 2  is  one  of three OUs presently
identified at NAS Jacksonville,  Florida.   This  section describes the selected
remedy for PSC 42, the wastewater treatment plant effluent polishing pond,  at OU
2.

The preferred interim  action for source  control at PSC  42  is  Alternative 3,
developed  and evaluated  in the  Focused  Remedial  Investigation  and Focused
Feasibility Study (FRI/FFS) for PSCs 3 and 42 at OU 2.  Alternative 3 proposes
stabilizing the  pond sludge and the standing pond water in situ.   This and  other
alternatives considered  for PSC 42  are  summarized in  Table 1-1.   The   major
components of the selected remedy include:
IROD_PSC.*2
Asw"oe.99                                1-1

-------
                                               CK8ONVH.LE

                                                VAL AIR STATION
                                             ^JACKSONVILLE


                                                  DAYTONA BEACH
                                                          Atlantic
                                                           Ocean
             Gulf   of   Mexico
FIGURE 1-1
FACILITY LOCATION MAP
INTERIM RECORD OF
DECISION FOR PSC 42
AT OU 2

NAS JACKSONVILLE
JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA

-------
                                     NA8 JACKSONVILLE-
                                                                  2500
                                                       SCALE: 1" = 2500'
FIGURE 1-2
FACILITY MAP AND LOCATION
OF OU 2
         -2f- -95
INTERIM RECORD OF
DECISION FOR PSC 42
AT OU 2

NAS JACKSONVILLE
JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA

-------
 TIMUOUANA
COUNTRY CU>6 -
   >
                                          POUSHMO POND
                                            (PfC 42)

                                                               400
                                               — 20— SURFACE CONTOUR
                                                     (FEET. N.G.V.D. 1929)
 FIGURE 1-3
 LOCATION OF PSC 42,
 POLISHING POND
INTERIM RECORD OF
DECISION FOR PSC 42
AT OU 2

NAS JACKSONVILLE
JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA

-------
                                                       Table 1-1
                          Comparative Analysis  of Remedial Alternatives for PSC 42

                                         Interim Record of Decision. Operable Unit 2
                                               Naval Air Station Jacksonville
                                                   Jacksonville. Florida
 Criterion
Alternative  1:   Onsite ax-situ
stabilization and onsite re-deposi-
;ion of the treated polishing pond
sludge  without   containment.
Dewatering of the surface water
in  the polishing  pond, pretreat-
ment and discharge to the Feder-
ally  owned  treatment  works
(FOTW).
                                                          Alternative 2: Offsite stabilization
                                                          and offsite disposal of the treat-
                                                          ed   polishing   pond   sludge.
                                                          Dewatering of the surface water
                                                          in  the  polishing  pond,  pretreat-
                                                          ment,  and   discharge  to  the
                                                          FOTW.
                                                                                           Alternative 3: In-situ stabilization
                                                                                           of the polishing pond  sludge and
                                                                                           any surface  water.
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
How risks are eliminat-
ed, reduced,  or con-
trolled
                         Alternative  1  would provide an
                         increased level of protection of
                         human  health and  the environ-
                         ment.  By stabilizing the sludge,
                         contaminant migration  is mini-
                         mized thereby reducing the risks
                         posed   by  the  contaminants.
                         Following pretreatment contami-
                         nant concentrations are reduced
                         to acceptable levels that would
                         not  pose  a threat to  human
                         health and environment.
                         No short-term or  cross-media
                         effects  are expected for the im-
                         plementation of this alternative.


                         This alternative will comply with
                         all ARARs concerned. It will also
                         comply  with the  RCRA closure
                         plan approved for PSC 42 at OU
                         2.
Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence
                         The  magnitude of  residual  risk
                         due to the sludge at the site is
                         minimal.  The stabilization pro-
                         cess used to stabilize the sludge
                         will reduce the possibility of con-
                         taminants   leaching  to   the
                         groundwater as well as direct
                         exposure. There will be no resid-
                         ual risk  from the  surface water
                         since it  will undergo  pretreat-
                         ment prior to discharge  to  the
                         FOTW.
Short-term or
cross-media effects

Compliance with ARARs
Chemical-,  location-,
and action-specific
ARARs
Magnitude of residual
risk
Adequacy of Controls
                         Stabilization   processes  have
                         been determined to be long term
                         source   control  technologies.
                         Therefore, the sludge will have
                         long term source control.  Since
                         the surface water will be treated
                         onsite prior to discharge to  the
                         FOTW and final discharge to the
                         St. Johns  River according  to
                         NPOES regulations,  source con-
                         trol will not be an issue.
                                 Analysis is the same as for Alter-
                                 native  1.   However, since the
                                 sludge  is treated  and disposed
                                 offsite, there will be no contami-
                                 nant migration.
                                                          Analysis is the same as for Alter-
                                                          native  1.
                                                          Analysis is the same as for Alter-
                                                          native  1.
                                There  will be  no residual  risk
                                from the sludge since it will be
                                treated and disposed  offsite.
                                Also, there will be  no residual
                                risk from the surface water since
                                it will undergo pretreatment prior
                                to discharge to the FOTW.
                                The analysis will be the same as
                                for alternative 1 with the excep-
                                tion that the sludge will be treat-
                                ed and disposed offsite.
                                                                                           Alternative 3 would provide an
                                                                                           increased level of protection of
                                                                                           human health and the environ-
                                                                                           ment.  By stabilizing the sludge
                                                                                           and surface water, contaminant
                                                                                           migration is  minimized, thereby
                                                                                           reducing the risks posed by the
                                                                                           contaminants.              ,
                                                                 Analysis is the same as for Alter-
                                                                 native 1.
                                                                 Analysis is the same as for Alter-
                                                                 native  1.
                                                                                          The magnitude  of  residual  risk
                                                                                          due to  the sludge  and surface
                                                                                          water at the site is minimal. The
                                                                                          stabilization  process  used  to
                                                                                          stabilize the sludge and surface
                                                                                          water will  reduce the possibility
                                                                                          of contaminants leaching to the
                                                                                          groundwater as well  as direct
                                                                                          exposure.
                                                                                          The analysis will be the same as
                                                                                          for alternative 1 with the excep-
                                                                                          tion that the  sludge  and  the
                                                                                          surface water  will be  stabilized
                                                                                          and will have long-term  source
                                                                                          control.
See notes at end of table.
  |ROD_PSC.42
  Asw~ba.95
                                                          1-5

-------
                                                Table 1-1 (Continued)
                           Comparative Analysis of Remedial Alternatives for PSC 42

                                          Interim Record of Decision. Operable Unit 2
                                                Naval Air Station Jacksonville
                                                    Jacksonville. Florida
 Criterion
 Alternative 1:   Onsite  ex-situ
 stabilization and onsite re-deposi-
 tion of the treated polishing pond
 sludge   without   containment.
 Dewatering of the surface water
 in the polishing pond, pretreat-
 ment and discharge to the Feder-
 ally  owned   treatment  works
 (FOTW).
Alternative 2: Off site stabilization
and offsite disposal of the treat-
ed   polishing   pond   sludge.
Dewatering of the surface water
in the  polishing pond, pretreat-
ment,   and   discharge  to  the
FOTW.
                                                                                           Alternative 3: In-situ staoilization
                                                                                           of the polishing pond sludge and
                                                                                           any surface water.
 Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence—continued
 Reliability of controls      Stabilization  is a highly reliable
                          source control  technology.
 Reduction of Mobirty, Toxicity, or Volume
 Treatment process and    The sludge  would  be treated
 remedy
Amount of hazardous
material destroyed or
treated
Reduction of mobility,
toxicity, or volume
through treatment
Irreversibility of treat-
ment
onsite,   ex-situ  and  disposed
onsite without containment. The
surface  water  will  be treated
onsite,  sent to the  FOTW and
then discharged to the St. Johns
River.
The total sludge volume of ap-
proximately 9,000 cubic  yards
and 4 million gallons of surface
water will be stabilized and treat-
ed respectively.
The mobility and the toxicity of
the sludge contaminants will  be
reduced  due to the binding that
takee place between the contam-
inants and the additives.  How-
ever,  the volume of the sludge
would  increase after the  treat-
ment process due to the addi-
tives  that  will be  introduced
during the  treatment  process.
This volume increase will  be in
the range of 20 to SO percent.
The toxjcity of the surface water
will also  be reduced after the
pretreatment and treatment  at
the FOTW,  however, the water
will be  discharged to  the  St.
Johna River.  There will be  no
increment in the treated volume
of surface water.
Stabilization processes are highly
irreversible on the long term.  In
other words, the bonds between
the contaminants and the addi-
tives do not reverse on the long
term. The treatment of surface
water is also irreversible.
                                 Since the sludge is treated and
                                 disposed offsite, this alternative
                                 gives the best controls of the
                                 three alternatives.
The treatment process and the
remedy is the same as for alter-
native 1,  however,  the  sludge
will  be treated  and disposed
offsite.
Analysis is the same as for Alter-
native 1.
Analysis is the same as for Alter-
native  1.   However,  the  treat-
ment and  disposal of the sludge
is done offsite and therefore, this
alternative  best  reduce* the
mobility, toxicity and the volume
of the sludge.
Analysis is the same as for Alter-
native 1.
                                 Analysis is the same as for Alter-
                                 native 1.
The sludge and  surface  water
will be treated in-situ, ensile.
Analysis is the same as for Alter-
native 1 with the exception of
the surface water  being  stabi-
lized as well as the sludge.

Analysis is the same as for Alter-
native 1.   However,  since  the
stabilization is done in-situ  the
reduction of mobility and toxicity
could be less than is alternative
1. The volume of the stabilized
mass  including  surface water
and sludge will be  increased in
the range of 4O  to 50 percent
with the addition of  stabilizing
reagents.
Analysis is the same as for Alter-
native 1.   However,  since  the
mixing is done in-situ the revers-
ibility could be more in this alter-
native.
See notes at end of table.
  IHOO_PSC.*2
  ASW~06.95
                                 1-6

-------
                                               Table  1-1  (Continued)
                          Comparative Analysis of Remedial Alternatives for PSC 42

                                        interim Record of Decision. Operable unit 2
                                               Naval Air Station Jacksonville
                                                   Jacksonville, Florida
 Criterion
Alternative  1:    Onsite  ex-situ
stabilization and onsite re-deposi-
tion of the treated polishing pond
sludge   without   containment.
Oewatenng of the surface water
in the polishing pcnd,  pretreat-
ment and discharge to the Feder-
ally  owned  treatment  works
(FOTW).
Alternative 2: Off site stabilization
and offsite disposal of the treat-
ed   polishing   pond  sludge.
Dewatering of the surface water
in the  polishing pond, pretreat-
ment,   and  discharge  to  the
FOTW.
                                                                                          Alternative 3: In-situ stabilization
                                                                                          of the polishing pond sludge and
                                                                                          any surface  water.
Reduction of Moblity, Toxicrty, or Volume--continued
Type and quantity of
treatment residual
Short-Term Effectiveness
Protection of communi-
ty during remedial ac-
tion
Protection of workers
during remedial actions
Environmental effects
Time until remedial
action objectives are
achieved
The treatment residual  of  the
sludge would be a solid material
with an increase in volume in the
range of 20 to 50 percent of the
original sludge  volume.   The
treated surface water would be
a liquid with no change in vol-
ume.
If required, dust and noise con-
trol would be implemented dur-
ing  dredging  and  dewatering
operations.    Volatilization  of
sludge contaminants  would  be
monitored during dredging opera-
tions.   Work  area  would  be
fenced off to control access.
Workers would  be required to
follow an approved Health  and
Safety Flan.  Underground utili-
ties in the vicinity will be located
and   staked  before   intrusive
work. There are risks associated
with operating  stabilization  and
dewatering equipment which will
be addressed in the Health and
Safety Plan.
No effects are  expected to the
groundwater.  Releases of con-
taminants or paniculate to air are
expected to have minimal envi-
ronmental effect.
Approximately  3  to  6  months
would  be required to complete
the project.
Analysis is the same as for Alter-
native 1.
Analysis is the same as for Alter-
native 1 except that during trans-
port of  sludge the volatilization
of the sludge contaminants  will
be  controlled  with  foam  and
covering.
Analysis is the same as for Alter-
native  1.
Analysis is the same as for Alter-
native 1.
Approximately  3 to 6  months
would  be required to complete
the project.
The treatment residual of  the
sludge and surface water would
be  solid  material with an  in-
crease in volume in the range of
40  to 50 percent..
Berming and lining of the pond
perimeter during stabilization will
prevent pond overflow.  Volatil-
ization of sludge contaminants
would be monitored during stabi-
lization  operations.   Work area
would be fenced off to control
access.
Analysis is the same as for Alter-
native 1.
Analysis is the same as for Alter-
native 1.
Approximately  2 to 4 months
would be required to complete
the project.
See notes at end of table.
  IROOJ>SC.42
  ASw'o8.95
                                                          1-7

-------
                                                Table 1-1 (Continued)
                           Comparative Analysis of Remedial Alternatives for  PSC 42

                                          Interim Record of Decision. OperaDle Unit 2
                                                Naval Air Station Jacksonville
                                                    Jacksonville. Florida
Criterion
 Alternative  1:   Onsite ex-situ
 stabilization and onsite re-deposi-
 tion of the treated polishing pond
 sludge   without  containment.
 Dewatermg of the surface water
 in the polishing pond,  pretreat-
 ment and discharge to the Feder-
 ally  owned   treatment works
 (FOTW).
Alter native 2: Off site stabilization
and  offsite disposal of the treat-
ed   polishing   pond  sludge.
Dewatering of the surface water
in the  polishing pond, pretreat-
ment,   and  discharge to  the
FOTW.
                                                                                            Alternative 3: In-situ stabilization
                                                                                            of the polishing pond sludge and
                                                                                            any surface water.
ImpUmentablrty

Ability to construct
technology
Reliability of technology
Ease of undertaking
additional remedial ac-
tion, if necessary
Monitoring consider-
ations

Coordination with other
agencies
Stabilization is a widely used
technology in metal contamina-
tion.  Stabilization vendors con-
duct their work onsite (i.e.,
using mobile unit) or offsite
(i.e., at or near a disposal facili-
ty).  Dewatering companies are
located locally.  The handling
of the sludge material will be
the most difficult in this alter-
native.
Stabilization is a proven technol-
ogy  for  sludge  contaminated
with metals. Many proven tech-
nologies exist for pretreatment of
the water pollutant present.
Implementation of this alterna-
tive would pose no impediment
to additional remediation.
Air monitoring  would be  con-
ducted  as  appropriate  during
excavation and transportation.
Coordination with NAS Jackson-
villa personnel would be required
for the  duration  of  remedial
activities.   Coordination  with
USEPA, FDEP, county and land-
fill regulatory agencies would be
necessary.
Analysis is the same as for
Alternative 1.
Analysis is the tame as for Alter-
native 1.  Regulated landfills are
designed  and  constructed  to
minimize  leaching of  contami-
nants.
Analysis is the same as for Alter-
native  1.
Analysis is the same as for Alter-
native  1.

Analysis is the same as for Alter-
native  1.
Analysis is the same as for
Alternative 1.  The handling of
the sludge material.and surface
water will be the least difficult
in this alternative.
Onsite  stabilization has  been
implemented  successfully   at
other sites  with similar waste
streams.  Unlike regulated land-
fills, onsite  in situ stabilization
does not have leaching or runoff
control protocols.
Care would  have to be taken to
avoid unnecessary disturbance
of the stabilized treated wastes
when  undertaking  additional
investigations or  remedial  ac-
tions. Disturbing these areas is
undesirable   because   it  may
provide pathways for reversal of
treatment and weakening of  the
structural integrity of the stabi-
lized media.
Analysis is the same as for Alter-
native 1.

Analysis is the same as for Alter-
native 1.
See total cost and notes on following page.
  IROD_PSC.42
  ASV/00.95
                                 1-8

-------
                                               Table 1-1 (Continued)
                          Comparative Analysis of Remedial Alternatives for PSC  42

                                        Interim Record of Decision. Operabie Unit 2
                                               Naval Air Station Jacksonville
                                                  Jacksonville. Rorida
Criterion
Alternative  1:   Onsite ax-situ
stabilization and onsite re-deposi-
tion of the treated polishing pond
sludge  without  containment.
Dewatering of the surface water
in the polishing  pond,  pretreat-
ment and discharge to the Feder-
ally  owned  treatment works
(FOTW).
Alternative 2: Off site stabilization
and offsite disposal of the treat-
ed   polishing   pond   sludge.
Oewatering of the surface water
in the  polishing  pond,  pretreat-
ment,  and   discharge  to  the
FOTW.
                                                                                          Alternative 3: In-situ stabilization
                                                                                          of the polishing pond sludge and
                                                                                          any surface water.
lmpUm«ntabirfy--con-
tinued
Availability and capaci-
ty of treatment, stor-.
age, and disposal ser-
vices
Stabilization will be conducted in
an onsite stabilization unit. This
unit will have enough capacity to
process 9,000 cubic yards  of
sludge.  The pond has  enough
capacity for the redeposition  of
the treated material. The FOTW
has  a  treatment  capacity   of
about 3 million gallons/day and it
currently runs  at half its capaci-
ty.
The analysis is the same as for
alternative 1, however, the stabi-
lization and disposal will be con-
ducted  offsite.    The  facility
where  the  stabilization  is done
should have enough capacity to
process 9,000 cubic yards of
sludge.  Also,  the facility would
use up about 12,000 cubic yards
of capacity (assuming 50 percent
increase in volume due to stabili-
zation).
Ability to obtain approv-   Once the Interim Record of Deci-   Analysis is the same as for Alter-
als from other agencies    sion (IROD) is signed the approv-   native 1.
                         al from the USEPA and the FDEP
                         is granted.  Other local regulato-
                         ry  approval will  be  obtained
                         before remedial action begins.
TOTAL COST                     3,520,000             6,050.850 (without contingen-
                                                              cy for transportation)
Stabilization will be conducted in
situ for the sludge material and
surface water.  A volume in-
crease of 40  to 50 percent is
expected.  Berming and lining
the  pond  perimeter  will (be
necessary  to  prevent   pond
overflow and provide additional
treatment capacity.
                                                                Analysis is the same as for Alter-
                                                                native 1.
                                                                Analysis is the same as for Alter-
                                                                native 1.
                                                                          2,605,000
Notes: PSC = potential source of contamination.
       RI/FS = Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study.
       NAS = Naval Air Station.
       ARARs = applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements.
       OU = operable unit.
       VOCs =  volatile organic compound*.
       CERCLA  = Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act.
       USEPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
       FDEP = Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
       RCRA =  Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
       O&M = operating and maintenance.
  IROO_PSC.*2
  ASW.06.95
                                                         1-9

-------
      •  site preparation and installation of the Ln sic-j mobile stabilisation unit.

         berming and  lining  the  area  surrounding  the  pond perimeter to prevent pond
         overflow.

         in sicu stabilization of polishing pond sludge and water, and

         demobilization and site restoration.

 Implementation of  the interim action will lower the  risk of potential future exposure
 to humans  and the environment by reducing the  leachability of contaminated media, and
 will close PSC 42  in accordance with RCRA closure requirements.  The Navy estimates
 that the preferred alternative will cost $2,605,000 to construct and will take 2 to
 4 months to implement.


 1.5  STATUTORY STATEMENT.   This interim action  is protective of human health and the
 environment, complies with Federal and State  applicable or relevant and appropriate
 requirements (ARARs)  for this limited scope of action,  and is cost effective.  Tables
 1-2 and 1-3 summarize ARARs for the interim remedial action.   Although this interim
 action is  not  intended to fully address  the statutory mandate for permanence  .and
 treatment   to  the  maximum  extent  practicable,   this  action uses  treatment  for
 contaminated materials  and  debris  and, thus,  is  in furtherance of that  statutory
 mandate.   Because  this action does not constitute the final remedy for contaminated
 groundwater at OU 2,  the statutory preference  for remedies that  employ treatments that
 reduce toxicity, mobility,  or volume  as a principal element will be addressed by the]
 final response action(s)  for  groundwater.   This  interim  action does  address  the
"Treduption  of toxicity and mobility for contaminated materials (soil)  considered in
 this remedy.  Subsequent actions are planned  to address the potential  threats posed
 by  the conditions  in the groundwater at OU 2.

 Because this is an IROD, review of this site and of this remedy will  be ongoing as
 the Navy continues to develop final remedial  alternatives for OU 2.


 1.6  SIGNATURE AND SUPPORT AGENCY ACCEPTANCE  OF THE REMEDY
 Captain R.E.  Resavage
 Commanding Officer,  NAS Jacksonville                              Date
   IROO_PSC.42
   ASw7o8.95                                1-10

-------
• Jd -;5;    i;_ 3CRA COMPLIANCE 3E":  *j
 •36.-2fc.-S5  i-»:5i                                                            NO. 318  P003/903
     •  site preparation and  installation of  the in aicu mobile  stabilization unit,

     •  berming and lining  the area surrounding the pond perimeter to prevent pond
        overflow,

        In sicu stabilization of polishing pond sludge and water,  and

     •  demobilization and site restoration.
                                                                 *
Implementation of the interim action will lower the risk of potential future  exposure
to humans and the  environment  by reducing the teachability of contaminated media,  and
will close PSC 42 in accordance with RCRA closure requirements.  The Navy estimates
chat Che preferred alternative will  cost $2,605,000 to construct and will take 2 to
4 months to implement.


1.5  STATUTORY STATEMENT.  This interim action is prote^ive  of human health and the
environment, complies wieh Federal and State applicabl   c relevant and appropriate
requirements (ARARs) for this  limited scope of action, _r..i is  cost effective.   Tables
1-2 and 1-3 summarize ARARs for the  interim remedial action.  Although this  interim
action  is  not intended CD  fully  address the statutory aandacs  for permanence  and
treatment  to  the  maximum extent   practicable,  this  action uses  treatment  for'
contaminated materials  and debris and,  thus,  is  in furtherance  of that statutory
mandate.  Because this action does not constitute the final remedy for contaminated
groundwacer ac OU 2, the statutory preference  for remedies that employ treatments that
reduce toxicity, mobility, or volume as a principal  element will be addressed by che
final response  action(s)  for groundwater.   This  interim action  does  address  che
reduction of toxicity and  mobility  for contaminated materials (soil) considered in
this remedy.  Subsequent actions are planned to address the potential threats  posed
by the conditions in the groundwater at OU 2.

Because this is an  IROD. review of  this  site and  of this  remedy will be ongoing as
the Navy continues to develop final  remedial alternatives for  OU 2.


I.6  SIGNATURE ANS SUPPORT AGENCY ACCEPTANCE OF THE REMEDY
                    "N
Captain R.D. Resavage
Commanding Officer,  WAS Jacksonville
  IROO.PSC.4Z
  ASW.Qfl.95                                1.10

-------
>  i

8,8
O  -p
«
-------
O'-n
0> Ji
Table 1-3
Synopsis of Action-Specific Federal and State Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs)
for Potential Source of Contamination (PSC) 42 at Operable Unit (OU) 2


Federal or State Standards
and Requirements
Occupational Safety and
Health Act (OSHA) Regula-
tions, Occupational Health
and Safety Regulations [29
CFR, Part 1910. Subpart Z]
RCRA Regulations, Closure
and Post-Closure [40 CFR
Part 264]
RCRA Regulations, Surface
Impoundments [40 CFR Part
264, Subpart K]

RCRA Regulations, Use and
Management of Containers
[40 CFR, Part 264, Subpart 1]
RCRA Regulations, Land
Treatment [40 CFR Part 264,
Subpart L|
Interim Record of Decision, Operable Unit 2
Naval Air Station Jacksonville
Jacksonville, Rorida
Status Requirements Synopsis
Applicable Establishes permissible exposure limits for workplace
exposure to a specific listing of chemicals.
Relevant and Details general requirements for closure and post-closure
appropriate of hazardous waste facilities, including installation of
groundwater monitoring program.
Relevant and Applies to owners and operators that use surface im-
appropriate poundments to treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste.

Relevant and Sets standards for the storage of containers of hazardous
appropriate waste.
Relevant and Establishes procedures and operating requirements for
appropriate both closure and post-closure of land treatment units.


Consideration in the Remedial Response Process
The remedial alternative at PSC 42 will require workers to be
exposed to RCRA-regulated listed hazardous waste. Therefore,
exposure limits set forth in this regulation are applicable.
The substantive requirements of the rule, including groundwater
monitoring, will be met as part of the remedial alternative at this
site. The corrective action plan will be revised to ruflect the
response action selected through the CERCLA process.
Because this remedial action involves the placement of RCRA-
regulated hazardous wastes in surface impoundmonts, this
regulation is relevant and appropriate. Closure requirements
should be considered for remedial actions for surface impound-
ments.
If the implementation of the remedial alternative involves the
storage of containers containing RCRA-regulated waste onsite,
the substantive requirements established in this rule will be met.
The treatment alternative of hazardous waste should meet the
substantive construction, monitoring, operational, and closure
standards established within this regulation.
See notes at end of table.

-------
Table 1-3i (Continued)
Synopsis of Action-Specific Federal and State Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs)
for Potential Source of Contamination (PSC) 42 at Operable Unit (OU) 2



Federal or State Standards
and Requirements
RCRA Regulations, Waste
Piles (40 CFR Part 264,
Subpart L]


Solid Waste Disposal Act
Regulations, Criteria for Clas-
sification of Solid Waste Dis-
posal Facilities and Practices
(42 USC 6901-6987 and 40
CFR Part 257]
Chapter 62-730, FAC, Rorida
Hazardous Waste Rule, Au-
gust 1990

Department of Transportation
Rules for Transportation of
Hazardous Materials (49 CFR
Parts 107, 117. 173, 148, and
179)
RCRA Regulations, LDRs for
Newly LJsted Wastes and
Hazardous Debris (40 CFR,
Parts 148.260,261.262,264.
265, 270, and 271)





Interim Record of Decision, Operable Unit 2
Naval Air Station Jacksonville
Jacksonville, Rorida
Status Requirements Synopsis
Relevant and Establishes procedures and operating requirements for
appropriate both closure and post-closure of waste piles. If removal or
decontamination of all contaminated subsoil is not possi-
ble, closure and post-closure requirements for landfills
must be attained.
Applicable Established criteria for use in determining which solid
waste disposal facilities and practices pose a reasonable
probability of adverse effect on public health or the
environment and, therefore, constitute prohibited open
dumps.

Relevant and Adopts by reference appropriate section of 40 CFR and
appropriate establishes minor additions to these regulations concern-
ing the generation, storage, treatment, transportation, and
disposal of hazardous wastes.
Applicable This regulation established the procedures for packaging,
labeling, and transporting of hazardous materials.



Relevant and This rule sets forth four options for management of
appropriate hazardous debris: (1) treat the debris to performance
standards established in this rule through 1 of 17 approved
technologies, (2) obtain a ruling from USEPA that the
debris no longer contains hazardous debris, (3) treat the
debris using a technology approved through an "equiva-
lent technology demonstration," or (4) treat the debris to
existing LDR standards for wastes contaminating the
debris and continue to manage under RCRA regulations,
Subtitle C.






Consideration in the Remedial Response Process
Because the remedial action chosen involves the
CERCLA generated RCRA listed hazardous waste
placement of
in waste piles,
the substantive requirements established in this rule will be met.




For waste identified as non-hazardous the substantive require-
ments of this rule will be met.




Both the substantive and permitting requirements
lion will be considered in design of the remedy.


Requirements established in this rule will be met
portation of hazardous material from the site
analysis, treatment, or disposal.







ol this regula-



during trans-
fer laboratory



rf debris is encountered as part of the interim remedial action,
one of the four management options for hazardous debris will be
implemented.















See notes at end of table.

-------
                                                               Table  1-3^ (Continued)
              Synopsis of Action-Specific Federal and State Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs)
                                    for Potential Source of Contamination (PSC) 42 at Operable Unit (OU)  2
                                                         Interim Record of Decision, Operable Unit 2
                                                               Naval Air Station Jacksonville
                                                                   Jacksonville, Florida
 Federal or State Standards
           and
       Requirements
Status
Requirements Synopsis
Consideration in the Remedial Response Process
Occupational Safety and        Applicable
Health Act (OSHA) Regula-
tions, General Industry Stan-
dards [29 CFR, Part 1910]
OSHA Regulations,             Applicable
Recordkeeping, Reporting,
and Related Regulations (29
CFR, Part 1904]
OSHA Regulations, Health      Applicable
and Safety Standards [29
CFR, Part 1926]
Chapter 62-4, FAC, Rorida      Applicable
Rules on Permits, May 1991

Chapter 62-736, FAC,          Applicable
Florida Rules on Hazardous
Waste Warning Signs, August
1994
           This act requires establishment of programs to assure
           worker health and safety at hazardous waste sites, in-
           cluding employee training requirements.

           Provides recordkeeping and reporting requirements
           applicable to remedial activities.
           Specifies the type of safety  training,  equipment,  and
           procedures to be used  during site  investigation  and
           remediation.
           Establishes procedures for obtaining permits for sources of
           pollution.
           Requires warning signs at National Priority List (NPL) and
           FDEP (formerly FDER) identified hazardous waste sites to
           inform the public of the presence of potentially harmful
           conditions.
                                      This regulation is applicable because during remedial action at
                                      the site, requirements of these regulations must be maintained.
                                      Recordkeeping and reporting requirements defined in this rule
                                      will be followed during site remediation.
                                      All phases of the remedial response project should be executed
                                      in compliance with this regulation.


                                      Substantive permitting requirements of this  rule will be met
                                      during the remedial action at PSC 42.
                                      Because Naval Air Station Jacksonville is currently listed on the
                                      NPL, this requirement is applicable.
Notes:  NAS = naval air station.
        CFR = Code of Federal Regulations.
        CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act.
        CWA = Clean Water Act.
        POTW =  publicly owned treatment works.
        FOTW =  federally owned treatment works.
        USC =  U.S. Code.
        FAC = Rorida Administrative Code.
        USEPA =. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
        FDEP = Rorida Department of Environmental Protection.
        FDER = Rorida Department of Environmental Regulation.

-------
                —              2.0  DECISION SUMMARY


 2.1  SITE NAME.  LOCATION.  AND DESCRIPTION.    NAS  Jacksonville is  located  in Duval
 County.  Florida,  on the western bank of the  St.  Johns River;  OU 2 is located in the
 northern part  of  the  installation  (Figure  1-3).    The  official  mission  of  NAS
 Jacksonville is  to provide  facilities,  service,  and managerial  support  for  the
 operation and maintenance of naval weapons  and  aircraft to operating forces of the
 U.S.  Navy as designated by the Chief of Naval Operations.  Some of the tasks required
 to accomplish this  mission include operation of fuel storage facilities,  performance
 of aircraft maintenance,  maintenance and operation  of engine  repair facilities and
 test  cells  for  turbojet engines,  and support of special weapons systems.

 The land use west of OU 2 is  primarily residential and recreational.  The Timuquana
 Country  Club and  Golf Course  border OU  2 to  the west.  Access to the country club is
 restricted  to  members  and guests.  Two private  residences abut the NAS  boundary on
 the northwest side of OU 2 near the St.  Johns River.  A residential area (trailer park)
 also  abuts the NAS boundary west of the Timuquana Country Club;  the distance from this
 trailer  park to OU 2 is about 3,000  feet.  Access  to OU 2  is  limited because of its
 proximity to the NAS taxiways and runways, which have additional security requirements.
 A chainlink fence  along  the base boundary  and continuous patrols make access*by
 unauthorized personnel  unlikely and  limited.


 2.2  SITE HISTORY  AND  ENFORCEMENT  ACTIVITIES.   The  area  incorporated into  NAS
 Jacksonville has been used for U.S. Navy operations  since 1940.  OU  2, which is located
 on the northern part of NAS Jacksonville,  has historically been  used primarily for
-wastewater  treatment.   Its  secondary  use has been  for fire-fighting training.

 Past  operations at the  wastewater treatment  plant  located within  OU 2 that  possibly
 affected soil quality include:

         drying  sludge in  unlined  beds  (PSCs  41 and 43),

         discharge  of treated  water to  an unlined polishing pond (PSC 42),  and

         land disposal of  sludge removed from the drying beds  (PSCs  3 and 4).

 In addition  to  the  treatment  plant, a  former fire-fighting training area (PSC 2)  is
 located  within  OU  2.  Burning fuels within the unlined pit at  the training  area has
 affected soil quality at  PSC  2.

 Probable waste materials disposed of at OU 2 include aviation fuel and waste petroleum
 products (at the former  fire-fighting training  area), inorganic and organic compounds
 (at the  domestic and industrial wastewater sludge drying beds), and  asbestos (at PSC
 4) .    PSC 4 will  be  evaluated  during the   site-wide Remedial  Investigation  and
 Feasibility Study (RI/FS)  to be conducted in 1995.  An FRI/FFS study has been completed
 for PSCs 2,  41,  and 43,  and the  IROD  was signed on  September  29, 1994.   Interim
 remedial action for PSCs 2,  41,  and 43  is scheduled to occur in 1995.  An  FRI/FFS has
 also  been completed at PSCs 3  and  42.  As a result of this FRI/FFS, it was  determined
 that  there was no  need for an  interim remedial action at PSC 3.  Therefore, PSC 3 will
 be  included  in  the  site-wide  RI/FS with PSC  4.  Investigations and  site  history  of
 PSC 42 are described briefly  in the following  paragraphs.
   IROO_PSC.42
   ASW70B.95                                2-1

-------
 PSC 42  is  the wastewater treatment plant  effluent polishing pond.  It has a capacity
 of approximately 5.7 million gallons  and  was built in 1970 to provide final clarifi-
 cation  and settling for approximately  2.3 million gallons per day of treated wastewater
 effluent.  It currently contains water from precipitation and seepage from groundwater.
 The pond was removed from service in 1987.   It appears  that the surface water  level
 in the  polishing pond is controlled by both rainfall events and fluctuations  in the
 groundwater  elevation.

 The USEPA  classified the polishing pond as a surface  water impoundment to treat  RCRA-
 listed  hazardous  wastes  F006 and  F019   (i.e.,  wastewater  treatment  sludge  from
 electroplating  operations  and from  the  chemical conversion coating of  aluminum)
 (Process Code T02).  The hazardous constituents for which the sludge is listed consist
 of  cadmium,  hexavalent  chromium,  nickel,  and cyanide  (complexed) for  F006  and
 hexavalent chromium and cyanide (complexed) for F019.

 In 1988, after a review of groundwater monitoring data, the FDEP issued a Consent  Order
 requiring  closure  of the effluent polishing pond.  In response to the Consent Order,
 NAS Jacksonville developed a closure plan for the wastewater treatment plant polishing
 pond (PSC 42).   This  closure  plan also  included PSCs  41  and 43 at OU 2, and  in
 September  1991,  FDEP issued  a permit for closure and  post-closure at PSCs 41, 42,  and
 43.

 As provided  in Section VII  of the  Federal  Facility  Agreement  (FFA),  parties should
 intend  to  integrate  the Navy's CERCLA response obligations and RCRA corrective action
 obligations  into any remedial actions.  As such, the FFA establishes the  mechanism
 whereby remediation of the  PSC will occur  under the provisions of CERCLA  with  RCRA!
 considered as an ARAR with respect  to releases of hazardous waste.   Further, the  FFA
-states  that  permits  shall be modified again after the CERCLA process  has resulted in
 the final  selection of a remedial action.

 PSC 42 has  been investigated  for groundwater  compliance with RCRA standards since  1983.
 Monitoring wells in  the vicinity  of the pond were sampled and analyzed quarterly  for
 1  year beginning in  1984 in accordance with  an FDEP and RCRA closure and post-closure
 permit.  Inorganic constituents exceeded permit standards at the point of compliance
 monitoring wells  in the shallow aquifer zone.

 During  July  1994, PSC 42 was included in a sampling event to assess the  potential  or
 actual  contamination of surface  water, sediment,  and biota at three surface water
 bodies  located within NAS Jacksonville, and to report any constituent concentrations
 that were greater than standards or guidelines established by the Federal ambient water
 quality criteria or Florida surface water classification standards.  Details concerning
 this event can be found in the Sampling Event Report Number 17,  Electrofishing Fisher-
 ies  Investigation at Selected Water Bodies, Naval Air Station,  Jacksonville, Florida
 (ABB-Environmental  Services, Inc. [ABB-ES]  1993b).   Sediment  samples were  analyzed
 for volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semivolatile organic compounds  (SVOCs), pesti-
 cides,  polychlorinated biphenyls  (PCBs),  and  inorganics.  According  to  the  Sampling
 Event Report Number 17,  PSC 42 contained levels of inorganic compounds above background
 levels  in  surface water and  sediment  samples.


 2.3  HIGHLIGHTS  OF  COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION.  The FRI/FFS report for PSC 42 at OU 2
 and the Proposed Plan were completed and released to the public on May  10,  1995.  These
 documents  and other Installation Restoration program information are available  for
 public review in the  Information Repository and Administrative Record.  The repository

   IROD_PSC.42
   ASW"08.95                               2-2

-------
 is maintained  at—the Charles D. Webb Wesconnett  Branch  of the Jacksonville Public
 Library in Jacksonville, Florida.  The notice of availability of  these documents was
 published in The Florida. Times  Union  on May  10,  1995.

 A 30-day public comment period was held from May 10,  1995,  to June  9. 1995.  Written
 comments  were  received  during  the public  comment period.   Written  comments and
 questions asked by the public are summarized and addressed in Appendix A, Responsive-
 ness Summary.


 2.4  SCOPE AND ROLE OF INTERIM REMEDIAL ACTION.   A focused  risk evaluation  (FRE) was
 conducted on the  soil surrounding the polishing pond,  PSC  42.  The FRE did not address
 the sludge and  water present in the polishing pond; however,  these materials  are being
 treated as part of this remedial action.  A risk assessment on the soil surrounding
 the pond indicated unacceptable  risks were not predicted from exposure to  surface soil
 at PSC 42 for  either humans,  terrestrial wildlife, plants,  or soil invertebrates.

 RCRA closure requirements support removal of the source.   Therefore, source removal
 was determined to be the interim remedial action objective for PSC 42.   The interim
 remedial action  objective  for PSC 42  is to  reduce future  potential risks  to human
 health and the environment  and  comply with  the  RCRA  closure plan approved for this
 PSC, as discussed in the FRI/FFS report.  Metal contaminants are potentially acting
 as a continuing source  of  soil  and groundwater  contamination  at OU 2.   The purpose
 of this interim remedial action  is  to remove this source of  contamination to the soil
 and groundwater at OU 2.  Based on previous investigations and the  evaluation of ARARs
 for this site,  the interim remedial action identified is  in  situ stabilization of the
 polishing pond sludge and standing water.

 Upon completion of the overall RI/FS for OU 2, the need for remedial  action to address
 groundwater contamination will be evaluated.  This IROD addresses an interim source
 control for contaminated materials at PSC 42 and is consistent with any future remedial
 activities that may take place  at the site.


 2 . 5  SITE CHARACTERISTICS.   Sampling and analysis of soil,  surface water,  and sediment
 found within the effluent polishing pond  (PSC 42)  were completed as part of the focused
 RI/FS  investigation  conducted in September  1994.   Sail and sediment  samples  were
 analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides, PCBs,  and inorganics.   Surface  water samples
 from the polishing pond were  analyzed for target  analyte list  (TAL) inorganics and
 miscellaneous wet chemistry parameters.   In addition to analyzing the  surface water
 and sediment  within the polishing pond,  surface  soil samples around the perimeter of
 the pond were analyzed to investigate the possible migration of contaminants from the
 potential of past flooding and maintenance activities. All  surface  soil  and sediment
 samples were first screened for the following metals: arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead,
 and nickel.   The  list of selected metals for  screening is based on previous soil and
 groundwater analytical  results  (ABB-ES,  1992b).   Based  on the  findings of  the
 screening,  the soil and sediment were analyzed  for TAL inorganics.  As  part of the
base-wide groundwater  modeling  effort  conducted  in collaboration with  the  U.S.
 Geological Survey (USGS),  four piezometer wells  were installed on the south and west
 sides (potentially upgradient) of PSC 42.  In addition to  groundwater elevation data,
 groundwater samples were collected and analyzed for contaminants of potential concern
 (CPC) ,  target compound list  (TCL) , and  TAL parameters and selected water quality tests
 from the four piezometer wells and two  existing downgradient wells.  Groundwater data
  IROD PSC.42
  ASW~06.95                                2-3

-------
collection  was "intended  to  provide  data  to  support  an  evaluation  of  remedial'
alternatives at PSC 42.  The results  of the FRI/FFS investigation,  which was  designed
to characterize  the  extent of metal  contamination at  PSC 42, are  summarized in  this
section.

Surrounding soil, surface  water, and sediment samples  at  PSC 42 contained  inorganics
related to the operation of the polishing pond.   Fifty-six soil samples were collected
from  the  soil surrounding the pond  for screening of the  five  metals.   From the
screening data,  chromium,  lead,  and cadmium were the  most often detected metals in
the soil around PSC 42.  Chromium and lead were detected  in all 56 samples collected
(including  6   field  duplicates).    All  of the  detections  of chromium  were above
background concentrations, whereas only 40 percent of the  lead  samples were above
background concentrations.  Cadmium  was  detected in 46 of 56 samples and nickel was
detected  in  7 of 56  samples.   All  detections  of cadmium  and  nickel  were above
background concentrations.   Arsenic  was  below detection  limits  in all 56 screening
samples collected. Twelve  samples were collected for TAL inorganic  analytical results
to confirm the detection of the above  selected  screening metals.   Lead was  detected
in all 12 samples (including  2 field duplicates), chromium was detected in  11 of 12
samples, and cadmium was detected in 7  of 12 samples.   Iron and aluminum were present
in all 12 samples.  Antimony,  arsenic,  barium,  beryllium, copper, magnesium, nickel,
potassium, sodium, thallium, and vanadium were not detected.   Soil  samples  from areas
surrounding the effluent polishing pond were also  found to contain  a pesticide, which
does not appear to be related to PSC  42 operations and may have been a result of past
base-wide pest control  programs.

Seventeen  sediment  samples  (including  two  field duplicates)  were collected  for
screening of the five metals.  From the screening data, chromium, cadmium, lead, and
n"icke,l_ were detected in all 17 samples (including 2 field duplicates).  There was no
detection of arsenic in the sediment samples.   Four sediment samples were collected
for TAL inorganic analyses  to confirm  the  detection of the above selected screening
metals.   Fifteen TAL inorganic parameters were detected in all four sediment samples.
Antimony, arsenic, and  selenium were detected in one of the four samples, and sodium
and nickel were detected in two of four samples.  There are no detections of cobalt,
potassium, or thallium.  Two  of seventeen  sediment samples were  submitted for total
and hexavalent chromium analysis.  Hexavalent chromium was not detected in the sample,
indicating that the chromium in the sediment is most likely in the trivalent oxidation
state.

Three surface  samples  in the pond were  collected and analyzed for  TAL inorganics.
Metals detected in all  three surface water samples include aluminum, barium, calcium,
chromium, iron, lead, magnesium,  manganese, nickel, potassium, and sodium.  Zinc was
not detected in two of  three samples.  There were no detections of antimony, arsenic,
cadmium, copper, mercury,  selenium,  silver, vanadium,  and cyanide.

Investigation of groundwater  at PSC  42 in  the  FRI/FFS was  conducted solely for the
purpose of gathering data  to  support an  evaluation of remedial alternatives for the
sediment and surface water. A full evaluation of the groundwater analytical  data was
deferred until the execution  of the overall OU2 RI/FS report.


2.6  SUMMARY OF  SITE RISKS.   An  FRE  was  completed  as  a means  of  characterizing
potential risks to humans  and the  environment  that could be  attributed to exposure
to  contaminants present in the soil surrounding the polishing pond, PSC 42.  The FRE
did not address the sludge and water present in PSC 42 (polishing pond) ; however, these

  IROO PSC.42
                                         2-4

-------
 materials are be-tng treated as part of  this  remedial  action.   A risk assessment on
 the soil surrounding the pond indicated unacceptable  risks  were not predicted from
 exposure to surface soil at PSC  42 for either humans,  terrestrial wildlife, plants.
 or soil  invertebrates.   However,  R.CRA closure requirements support  removal  of the
 source,  the sediment and surrounding surface soil,  to  comply with ARARs for PSC 42.


 2.7  SELECTED REMEDY.   Of  the three  alternatives  evaluated,   the  selected interim
 remedial action  for source  control at  the PSC 42 at OU 2 is Alternative 3,  described
 in the FRI/FFS report for OU 2.   Alternative 3 involves:

         site  preparation and installation  of the  in situ  mobile stabilization unit,

      •  berming  and lining  the area surrounding the pond  perimeter to prevent pond
         overflow,

         in  situ  stabilization of  polishing pond sludge and water,  and

         demobilization and  site  restoration.

 The concentrations  of contaminants in the materials  at  PSC  42 are above the RCRA Land
 Disposal Restrictions  (LDR)  treatment standards for  those hazardous wastes and, thus,
 would require treatment prior to disposal.  As previously discussed,  the  materials
 are contaminated with metals.  The treatment technology proposed in this alternative
 is in situ  stabilization, which involves immobilizing the metals in the contaminated
 material by adding a setting agent such as  Portland  cement.  Metals are not destroyed
 by this  treatment process,  but rather  become physically and chemically entrapped in
"the resulting material, which can take the  form of a semisolid to a solid.  Long-term
 monitoring  of this  treated  soil  is contemplated under  RCRA and  will be incorporated
 in the final  remedy for OU  2.

 The sides of  the polishing pond will be bermed to the necessary  elevation to provide
 room  for the added stabilization  mixture;  i.e.,  concrete, sand, and  any  reagents.
 After the in situ stabilization process,  the product and contaminated pond water will
 remain in place.

 Once  treatment is  completed,  the  site will be graded  and seeded for  revegetation.
 All equipment and features  associated  with  the  interim remediation  would be removed
 at the end  of the process.

 The Navy estimates  the total cost of this  interim  remedial action  to  be $2,605,000
 to construct  and maintain.


 2 . 8  STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS. The interim remedial action selected for implementation
 at PSC 42 is consistent with  CERCLA and the National  Oil and  Hazardous  Substances
 Contingency Plan (NCP).  The selected remedies  are protective of human health and the
 environment, attain ARARs, and are  cost effective.  The selected remedies also satisfy
 the statutory preference for remedial treatment of metals  that significantly reduces
 the mobility,  toxicity, or  volume  of  hazardous substances as a principal  element.
 Because  this remedy  is not intended  as the  final action for  remediation of  the
 contaminated  soil and groundwater at OU 2,  the statutory preference  for treatment of
 this  media  will  be  addressed during the  final  FS for OU 2.  Long-term  monitoring of
   IROD_PSC.42
   ASW.06.93                                2-5

-------
this created sort is contemplated under  RCRA  and will  also  be  incorporated into the
final remedy for OU 2.

Additionally, the selected  remedy uses alternate treatment  technologies  or resource
recovery technologies to the maximum extent practicable.   Because this remedy is not
intended as the  final  remedial effort  for groundwater at OU 2, any contaminated media
remaining  onsite  after this  interim  remedial action  will  be  addressed during the
overall RI/FS for OU 2  and  the  resulting Record of  Decision.


2.9  DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT  CHANGES.   There are no  significant changes in this
interim remedial action from  that described in the  Proposed Plan.
  IROO_PSC.42
  ASW.06.95                                2-6

-------
       APPENDIX A



RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY

-------
                        Appendix  A,  Responsiveness Summary


The Responsiveness  Summary serves three  purposes.   First,  it provides regulatory
agencies with  information about  the  community preferences  regarding the remedial
alternatives presented for Potential  Source  of Contamination (PSC) 42, at Operable
Unit (OU) 2, Naval Air Station (NAS) Jacksonville.  Second,  the Responsiveness  Summary
documents how public comments have been considered and  integrated  into the decision-
making process.  Third, it provides  the  Navy,  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) , and Florida Department of Environmental Protection  (FDEP) with the opportunity
to respond to each comment submitted.

The Focused Remedial Investigation and Focused Feasibility Study for PSCs 3 and 42
and the Proposed Plan  for PSC 42  were made  available  in  an information repository
maintained at the Charles D. Uebb Wesconnett Branch of the Jacksonville Public Library.


The following comments were received during  the public comment period.
  IROD_PSC.*2
  ASW.06.9S                                A-1

-------
So
*.
                                                                 Responsiveness Summary
                                                                    Interim Record of Decision
                                                        Potential Source of Contamination 42 at Operable Unit 2
                                                                   Naval Air Station Jacksonville
                                                                       Jacksonville, Rorida
                                        Comment
Response
                                                       NO  COMMENTS  RECEIVED

-------
•s
        s*
 so  O V ••*
 fife,*  a
 »  a«  §
 -  g.fi ±3
    ^ + -~
 o ****
 w S5 •**
 fi *5  ^r
 £00
*         «
+* J- .S
    s  v  «s
    s-o  a
        5  =
                           Reproduced by NTIS
                           National Technical Information Service
                           U.S. Department of Commerce
                           Springfield, VA  22161
                          This report was printed specifically for your
                          order from our collection of more than 2 million
                          technical reports.
For economy and efficiency, NTIS does not maintain stock of its vast
collection of technical reports. Rather, most documents are printed for
each order. Your copy is the best possible reproduction available from
our master archive. If you have any questions concerning this document
or any order you placed with NTIS, please call our Customer Services
Department at (703) 387-4660.

Always think of NTIS when you want:
• Access to the technical, scientific, and engineering results generated
by the ongoing multibillion dollar R&D program of the U.S. Government.
• R&D results from Japan, West Germany, Great Britain, and some 20
other countries, most of it reported in English.
                          NTIS also operates two centers that can provide you with valuable
                          information:
                          • The Federal Computer Products Center - offers software and
                          datatlles produced by Federal agencies.
                          • The Center for the Utilization of Federal Technology - gives you
                          access to the best of Federal technologies and laboratory resources.

                          For more information about NTIS, send for our FREE NTIS Products
                           and Services Catalog which describes how you can access this U.S. and
                          foreign Government technology. Call (703) 487-4650 or send this
                          sheet to NTIS, U.S. Department of Commerce, Springfield, VA 22161.
                          Ask for catalog, PR-827.
                          Name	
                          Address
                          Telephone.
                                       -Your Source to U.S. and Foreign Government
                                          Research and Technology

-------